security_insights

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool can modify state (enable/disable) but does not disclose potential impacts (e.g., disabling affects all users), required permissions, or any side effects. The description is minimal and lacks depth needed for safe invocation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides usage guidance. There is no redundant or extraneous information, making it efficient and easy to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has low complexity with three parameters, and the output schema exists (though not shown). The description covers the core actions and scope. It does not explain the result of 'check' or the applicability of 'targetOus', but those are documented in the schema. Overall, it is adequate given the schema coverage and output schema presence, missing only minor contextual details.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already described in the schema. The tool description merely reiterates the actions without adding new meaning, such as examples, formatting, or behavior nuances. Since coverage is high, the baseline score is 3; the description adds no extra value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Manages' and the resource 'enablement status of Chrome Security Insights'. It explicitly lists the specific actions (check, enable, disable) and implies customer-wide scope. The tool name and description distinguish it from siblings, which focus on other Chrome Enterprise features like CEP, DLP, and connectors.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this to check, enable, or disable the security insights feature customer-wide.' It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools. However, given the sibling tools are for different features, the intended usage is unambiguous.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.